Solanum alternatopinnatum

Solanum alternatopinnatum differs from other species of the S. wendlandii group by having compound leaves with clearly petiolulate leaflets, heterandrous flowers, and nearly herbaceous stems. Solanum alternatopinnatum, S. pachandrum and S. refractum also have pinnatifid compound leaves but do not have clearly petiolate leaflets and S. refractum occasionally has leaves that are only very shallowly lobed. A single specimen of S. alternatopinnatum (Glaziou 16294, K) has been seen with simple leaves. The stems of S. alternatopinnatum are herbaceous or rarely subwoody in contrast to the subwoody stems of S. refractum. These species are also completely allopatric, with S. refractum restricted to southern Mexico, S. pachyandrum found in the Huancabamba depression of northern Peru and southern Ecuador and S. alternatopinnatum ranging from Brazil and Paraguay to northern Argentina.

Leaves of S. alternatopinnatum are eaten as a vegetable in Brazil (as jiciri or juciri, Mentz & Oliveira, 2004); apparently the prickles soften with cooking.

This species was known for a long time by the name S. juciri Mart., a name coined as a replacement for S. oleraceum Vell. (Vellozo, 1829), a homonym of S. oleraceum Dunal that was published earlier (Dunal, 1813; a synonym of S. americanum Mill. of the Morelloid clade). Solanum juciri is an illegitimate name under the Code, as S. alternatopinnatum was cited in synonymy, with the comment “nomen ineptissimum plantae ab auctore non visae pinni tam alternantibus quam oppositis instructe datum” (this is a silly name given to this plant by the author who did not see alternate but opposite leaflets); Sendtner (1846) recognized the existence of the name but considered it inappropriate.

In describing S. viridipes, Dunal (1852) cited two specimens: Guillot s.n. from Paris, and a specimen collected from a plant cultivated in Montpellier cited as “S. laxiflorum Dunal mss. in herb. Schad. nec Sendtn.” A sheet in G-DC (G00145850, F neg. 6820 =IDC microfiche 800-61.2079:III.2) bears an annotation in Dunal’s hand “Solanum laxiflorum 1842” and is probably the second element from the protologue. We prefer to designate the field-collected Guillot s.n. at P as the lectotype and do so here. We suspect “in herb. Schad.” is a misprint for “in herb. Sched.” and refers to an annotation on a herbarium specimen and not to a particular herbarium.

Hassler described S. juciri forma paraguariense using his collection Hassler 9365 and seven years later used the same collection (together with Fiebrig 6157) to describe S. viridipes var. intermedium as a new name for his forma paraguariense (Hassler 1911, 1918). He described var. intermedium in terms of his forma paraguariense (“Caule foliis ut in Fedde Rep. l. c. pro forma paraguariensi nob. indicatus” [stem and leaves from Fedde Rep. description of the new forma paraguariense]: Hassler, 1918: 239).We are considering that he was explicitly coining a new name using the same material to replace forma paraguariense, and therefore are treating these two names as homotypic. Hassler did not explicitly state a herbarium for either name, but we are using the duplicate of Hassler 9365 with the label indicating it is from the original set of plants sent from Paraguay (G00443010), as the lectotype for both names, rather than the duplicate photographed by Morton (G00443009) which does not bear an annotation in Hassler’s hand. The two sheets of G00443010 are labelled as being parts of a single specimen (fide N. Fumeaux & L. Ramella, pers. comm.); one has flowers and the other leaves. Such two-sheet types are allowable under Article 8.3 (McNeill et al. 2012) if the parts are clearly indicated as such.